Is CDS Toast?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is CDS Toast?
In today's Torygraph:
Defence chief General Sir David Richards attacks Armed Forces cuts - Telegraph
Is this a CDS on his way out? If so who will replace him as the options appear slim?
VCDS - Houghton: A Joint officer and good chap
1SL - Stanhope: Bright but not a great communicator.
RAF - not a chance after Stirrup's poor advice at SDSR
My money is on Stanhope - after all the biggest project to be delivered over the next 5 years is Carrier Enabled Power Projection.
Defence chief General Sir David Richards attacks Armed Forces cuts - Telegraph
Is this a CDS on his way out? If so who will replace him as the options appear slim?
VCDS - Houghton: A Joint officer and good chap
1SL - Stanhope: Bright but not a great communicator.
RAF - not a chance after Stirrup's poor advice at SDSR
My money is on Stanhope - after all the biggest project to be delivered over the next 5 years is Carrier Enabled Power Projection.
Last edited by Bismark; 15th Nov 2012 at 09:21.
The next CDS should be a civvy. We could hold local elections with the political parties each having a contender, Independants would have to place a £5000 deposit. They could have the right to sack the chief of the army, navy or airforce if they wanted and dictate policy, even if they had no mil experiance at all. Best of all we will give them £120 grand and pay for their 'advisors'.
Of course that could never happen to a 'force' could it!
Must dash, off out to spoil a voting slip
Of course that could never happen to a 'force' could it!
Must dash, off out to spoil a voting slip
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London Town
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets see how he responds to this request then
Britain could intervene in Syria as David Cameron considers no-fly zone - Telegraph
Britain could intervene in Syria as David Cameron considers no-fly zone - Telegraph
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
A superficial look suggests he is looking for more support for dark blue which rather reinforces the point that 6 destroyers and 13 frigates is no force with which to support a carrier.
I am a bit confussed (nothing new):
"Defence cuts have left the Armed Forces unable to carry out all the tasks that ministers demand of them, the Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards has claimed"...
“I and the Chiefs of Staff agree that we can deliver the military capability required with the resources available.”
"Defence cuts have left the Armed Forces unable to carry out all the tasks that ministers demand of them, the Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards has claimed"...
“I and the Chiefs of Staff agree that we can deliver the military capability required with the resources available.”
Avtur - perhaps CDS hasn't quite done what the Torygraph (and others) say he has?
He was speaking at the annual set-piece lecture for the Changing Character of War Programme at Oxford. What has probably happened is that he's stood up and given a frank analysis of things in a section of his speech which could be subtitled 'Challenges facing the Chief of Defence Staff today'. He's mentioned the issue of political will to send forces to do things running into the difficulty of forces being cut. He's noted that there are shortages in assets for the RN (and probably the army and RAF too, but not reported). He's noted the problem that the media bay for the decimation of the senior levels of all three services without ever asking what the implications of such reductions might be in terms of defence diplomacy, alliance/coalition ops, etc, etc.
And then he's moved on to other issues, probably with the same straight-forward generally jargon-less approach that he seems to have.
Fast forward a week, and someone in the media learns of the speech (there's no online transcript or video content as far as I can ascertain) and it then gets spun as 'CDS slams/criticises * Goverment defence policy' (* = delete as appropriate to tabloid/broadsheet format)...
He was speaking at the annual set-piece lecture for the Changing Character of War Programme at Oxford. What has probably happened is that he's stood up and given a frank analysis of things in a section of his speech which could be subtitled 'Challenges facing the Chief of Defence Staff today'. He's mentioned the issue of political will to send forces to do things running into the difficulty of forces being cut. He's noted that there are shortages in assets for the RN (and probably the army and RAF too, but not reported). He's noted the problem that the media bay for the decimation of the senior levels of all three services without ever asking what the implications of such reductions might be in terms of defence diplomacy, alliance/coalition ops, etc, etc.
And then he's moved on to other issues, probably with the same straight-forward generally jargon-less approach that he seems to have.
Fast forward a week, and someone in the media learns of the speech (there's no online transcript or video content as far as I can ascertain) and it then gets spun as 'CDS slams/criticises * Goverment defence policy' (* = delete as appropriate to tabloid/broadsheet format)...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
The only way things will ever change is to have a war with massive losses and deaths on our side where we get our asses well and truly kicked due to the lack of manpower, assets, or both and we lose, somewhere like the Falklands, resulting in the Government of the day being ousted in the public uproar that follows.
Partially succeeding with less and less resources means things will carry on as before, it reminds me of the saying when the Tornado or as it was called then Multi Role Combat Aircraft came to fruition, the joke at the time was we are getting less and less aircraft doing more and more roles, so eventually we will end up with **** all doing everything.... One never imagined that joke would ever come true...
All the technology and smart weapons in the world will not replace feet on the ground, something that's apparent in Afghanistan, nice having a fortified positions, but if that is all you hold it's a pretty pointless exercise in the scheme of things.
Partially succeeding with less and less resources means things will carry on as before, it reminds me of the saying when the Tornado or as it was called then Multi Role Combat Aircraft came to fruition, the joke at the time was we are getting less and less aircraft doing more and more roles, so eventually we will end up with **** all doing everything.... One never imagined that joke would ever come true...
All the technology and smart weapons in the world will not replace feet on the ground, something that's apparent in Afghanistan, nice having a fortified positions, but if that is all you hold it's a pretty pointless exercise in the scheme of things.
Last edited by NutLoose; 15th Nov 2012 at 16:07.
One never imagined that joke would ever come true...
One occasion when I take absolutely no pleasure in saying "I told you so".
PVR
I haven't PVR'd (and neither do I intend to in the near future) but I know many people who have. They have told me what they write in the 'why have you PVR'd?' box. Alot of what they say always rings true and gets to the very heart of what is wrong with the RAF (HM Forces) today. Much like what F3WMB has alluded to.
My only question is, does anyone really read it and do they really care? I have heard of some damning indictments from people who have PVR'd that should make the Lords and Masters really sit up and take notice. It just seems that nothing has changed and that, apparently, experienced individuals leaving prematurely doesn't seem to ruffle anyone's feathers.
Sad really.
BV
My only question is, does anyone really read it and do they really care? I have heard of some damning indictments from people who have PVR'd that should make the Lords and Masters really sit up and take notice. It just seems that nothing has changed and that, apparently, experienced individuals leaving prematurely doesn't seem to ruffle anyone's feathers.
Sad really.
BV
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The really sad thing for all concerned is the retention of the disillusioned that PVR. I know it would leave holes but it would also remove people who may become increasingly disaffected as their PVR period drags on. We had one pilot shuffled in to an ops slot and his only contribution for the remaining months was to answer the telephone when the assistant was making coffee.
Prior planning and preparation. I PVR'd before I reached disillusionment. I had to wait 3 years, and timed it just about right.
Was given a ground tour, but a fiver to Saddam meant the Gulf War kept me on the front line for 10 months.
Then I continued working hard, and was rewarded by my bosses finding some spare hours for me to keep flying.
Had no time for those who stopped working after PVRing. It only stitches your mates up anyway.
Was given a ground tour, but a fiver to Saddam meant the Gulf War kept me on the front line for 10 months.
Then I continued working hard, and was rewarded by my bosses finding some spare hours for me to keep flying.
Had no time for those who stopped working after PVRing. It only stitches your mates up anyway.
Somewhere else - possibly on this site - the smart money said that Peach: 'was in the wrong lane when it came to the final straight'.
I don't know the current great and good well but I would certainly follow Peach towards the sound of the gunfire!
Old Duffer
I don't know the current great and good well but I would certainly follow Peach towards the sound of the gunfire!
Old Duffer